(October 19, 2012 at 11:20 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: This is the one debate of theirs that I watched:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8
I won't say Hitchens doesn't hold his own, I think he does reasonably well. But I think D'Souza does quite well too, and in certain ways, a bit stronger than Hitchens.
I can see where, as a theist, you'd be inclined to support D'Souza's argument and, as an atheist, I would be inclined to support Hitchens.
However, I reject D'Souza's premise that because science can't explain everything, the rational mind should turn to religion to fill in the gaps. Why shouldn't the rational mind simply accept that some things aren't knowable given our current limitations? Perhaps in the future with the invention of new technologies and techniques some of these mysteries will reveal themselves, perhaps not, either way science should and will keep moving forward. Why is there the need to fit everything in a nice, neat box? And why is it "rational" when one can't answer something, to point to a god (for which there is no empirical evidence)? Wouldn't it be more rational (and honest) to simply say, "I don't know."?
That's the crux of it for me. As an atheist I'm happy to admit, "I don't know." It seems that most theists would rather have faith in something for which there is no evidence than admit there might not be a reason for life. Even though there IS evidence for the chemical and electrical systems at work in the human brain during "religious" and "divine" experiences and the effects of those systems on the human experience.
